1984 PLP 1796 (CLC)

‑‑ Art. 9 read with Import Policy Order, 1975, Sched., headings 73.11 & 94 03 II‑‑Whether goods fall under one heading or other, held, a question of fact‑Classification of imported goods‑Three concurrent findings given by Customs Authorities‑Detailed and well‑reasoned order written by Assistant Collector of Customs with which higher customs authorities agreed‑Held, no interference called for in Constitutional petition.‑‑[Question of fact]. SAMAD ALI SHAH, J.‑This Constitutional Petition is filed against the impugned orders dated 29th September, 1976, 13th January, 1977 and 23rd August, 1977 passed, respectively by Assistant Collector of Customs, Collector of Customs in appeal and Central Board of Revenue in revision.

2. Briefly stated the relevant facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioners imported Steel Angles and claimed that they have done so as the Steel Angles were described under Serial No. 133 of the free list of the Import Policy Order of 1975, for which they were granted licence. After the consignment had arrived, the petitioners presented all the relevant documents to the Customs Authorities and the goods were examined by the Appraising Department, in consequence whereof Assistant Collector issued show‑cause notice dated 13th August, 1976 saying that the goods were perforated angles not classifiable under heading 73.11 but were covered under heading 94.03 (II) of the I. T. C. Schedule, as such are banded under Import Policy Order of 1975. Petitioners appeared before the Assistant Collector and contended that Steel Perforated Angles fall under heading 73.11 and not under the heading 94.03 II but their contention was not accepted and impugned order, dated 29‑9‑1976 was passed. Against this order an appeal was filed before the Collector of Customs, who has also maintained the order of Assistant Collector of Customs and dismissed the appeal vide second impugned order mentioned above. Petitioners then filed revision application before the Central Board of Revenue which wars also dismissed vide third impugned order mentioned above. "73.11. Angles, shapes and sections of i, on and steel, hot rolled, forged, extruded, cold‑formed or cold‑finished ; sheet piling or iron or steel, whether or not drilled, punched c)r made from assembled elements. 94.03. Other furniture and parts thereof; I. For printing works. II. Other.

4. In support of contention that goods fall under headings 73.11 Mr. Rahmat Ellahi, Advocate has further quoted extracts from Brussels Explanatory Notes in which it is stated that the heavier angles, shapes and sections (e g. girders, beams, pillars and joists) are used in the construction of bridges, buildings, ships, etc. lighter products are used in the manufacture of agricultural implements, machinery, automobiles, fences, furniture, sliding door or curtain tracks, umbrella ribs and numerous other articles. It is further stated that in the notes that all these Products remain within the heading if worked (e.g. drilled, punched or twisted), provided that they do not thereby assume the character of articles or of products falling within other headings.

5. On the basis stated above, it is argued by Mr. Rahmat Ellahi that the goods in question are lighter products meant for general purposes used in manufacture of agricultural implements, machinery, automobiles and furniture.

6. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the goods contemplated under heading 73.11 are normally semi‑finished goods while the goods in question in this case are finished products and are parts of furniture which are covered by heading 94.03. It is further stated that the goods in question are called "Shelf Hardware" and are used specially for shelves and racks for use in shops and workshops. It is further stated that movable shelves and racks are specified as items of furniture under item 94.03.

7. The question whether goods fall under one heading or the other is a question of fact. In this regard there are three concurrent findings given by the Customs Authorities in the impugned orders. Mr. Muzaffar Hasan, Advocate has further pointed out that the Assistant Collector of Customs had directed in the First Impugned Order that the goods could be released against a redemption fine of Rs. 10,000 after assessment under item 94.03. In appeal Collector of Customs upholding the findings of Assistant Collector of Customs reduced the fine from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 7,

000. In revision the fine was further reduced from Rs. 7,000 to Rs. 1,000 but no attempt was made by the petitioners to have the goods released after proper assessment and payment of fine probably for the reason that the value of the goods was very low. It appears from the record that after filing of this petition no attempt was made to obtain interim relief in the shape of release of goods on furnishing Bank Guarantee or deposit in cash of amount demanded by the Customs Authori ties. Mr. Muzaffar Hasan, Advocate has further pointed out that the goods in question have been sold away by the Customs Authorities by way of a public auction.

8. Mr. Muzaffar Hasan, Advocate has further submitted that in case of dispute# whether the goods would fall under one head or the other, on such question final ruling is to be obtained from the Chief Controller and in support of this argument he has referred us to paragraph 2.113 in manual of Imports and Exports Control, which envisages that importers should always give correct classification of items. In case of doubt or dispute the ruling given by the Chief Controller is final. On this premise, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that attempt should have been made by the petitioners, if they were not satisfied with three concurrent findings on this question, by taking steps to approach the‑Chief Controller for this ruling directly or through Customs Authorities to resolve the dispute as to under which heading the goods would fall.

9. In any case, we are of the view that there are three concurrent' findings given by Customs Authorities and a detailed and well‑reasoned order' is written by the Assistant Collector of Customs with which Collector of' Customs and Central Board of Revenue have agreed hence no interference is called for in this petition which is hereby dismissed. M. B. A. Petition dismissed.